Entertainment

Denver museum's plan to sell four Clyfford Still paintings has art world watching

Clyfford Still, in a 1959 portrait by Hans Namuth, ranks among the most famous abstract-expressionists.
(Clyfford Still Museum )

If Denver follows through with its recently announced plan to sell four of the 825 paintings destined for its new Clyfford Still Museum, the art world will be watching.

And perhaps questioning the ethics of the move.

The sale could net $25 million for the museum and generate considerable attention among dealers and museums because the late abstract-expressionist's works so rarely come on the market.

But there's a catch. While the sale does not technically violate guidelines established by the American Association of Museums and Association of Art Museum Directors for the sale or "deaccessioning" of artworks, it might not follow them in spirit.

The Clyfford Still Museum will house 94 percent of the artist's output, including this 1940 self-portrait, PH-382, oil on canvas.
(Clyfford Still Estate )

Ethics rules insist that proceeds from the sale of holdings go directly into acquiring other ones. Art museums can't use the money to pay salaries or cover utilities — or to beef up an endowment, as the Still Museum plans to do.

"Officially, they're not doing anything wrong. But obviously, it is problematic," said Janet Marstine, former director of Seton Hall University's Institute of Museum Ethics.

Still Museum director Dean Sobel believes the established guidelines do not apply in this case. The technicality: The privately funded museum, which is set to open late next year, has not yet officially taken possession of the pieces. They were bequeathed to the city of Denver when Still's widow, Patricia, died in 2005.

Advertisement

The museum petitioned a Maryland county court on Nov. 3 to permit the estate of Patricia Still, which has yet to be distributed, to release the four works early — before the formal transfer of ownership occurs.

"It's not deaccessioning by any stretch," Sobel said. But Marstine, now on the faculty of Britain's University of Leicester, calls the early release of the pieces a "loophole."

The ethics rules are intended to ensure that museum leaders do not sell artworks to balance budgets during crises — that pieces in the public trust are properly cared for.

Because museums are public institutions, Marstine said, a key issue is transparency. Decisions about what works are to be sold from collections — and why and how — need to be made in the open.

To that end, she said, the Still Museum's up-front announcement of this sale to the press this month helps to mitigate the ethical fallout from it.

For its part, the museum believes the good outweighs any bad. The money would create a major endowment that would assure the museum's long-term financial viability. It would cover not only exhibition costs and general expenses but also publications, research and symposia that would ensure it a key place in American art scholarship.

"I'm very excited about this," Sobel said, "because, if we're successful, it would be the capstone that would allow this institution to be all that it could be."

Still he insists, "Once we own those paintings as an art museum, we would not do this. It's a simple as that."

But nothing is simple about the arrangement between the city and the Still estate.

In 2004, Patricia Still gave her husband's holdings — 2,000 of his coveted paintings and drawings — to Denver in exchange for the city promising to build a museum dedicated solely to him.

There were also strict accompanying restrictions. Still's will and the donation agreement forbid such amenities as a museum restaurant or auditorium, and they do not allow the sale or loan of any works or the display of anything by another artist.

When Still's widow died a year later, the museum received an additional bequest of 400 works from her collection plus the artist's archives. The four paintings on the block would come from that holding.

According to Sobel, the caveats tied to the Still estate apply to his widow's bequest as well. But there is a key distinction: While Still intended his collection to always remain intact, Patricia Still donated or sold 13 of the works in her possession after her husband's death in 1980.

"We feel that precedent makes this appropriate," Sobel said of the planned sale.

Avoiding a free-for-all

One thing does seem clear, however. The paintings will be hot commodities at auction.

"They are few and far between," said Vivian Bullaudy, director of the Hollis Taggart Galleries in New York. "And you know the feeding frenzy that occurs when a particular collection is up for sale with works that haven't been seen or even handled in awhile."

But the Still Museum wants to avoid a free-for-all. Following the abstract-expressionist's practice of keeping tight control of the sales of his paintings, the works would be sold as a group to other museums.

Sobel chose a quartet of complementary paintings that provide examples from each of the three main periods in Still's career, including two of the artist's prime post-World War II abstractions.

Marstine applauds this approach. She said it is an important ethical consideration, because it would maintain public access to the works.

Bullaudy believes that there will be art museums with both the desire and financial means to purchase the four paintings.

"Right now, it's a little bit more difficult for some, with the expansion programs that they have going on, but material is becoming very difficult to find of a stellar nature," she said.

A breakdown of Denver's proposed Clyfford Still paintings sale

Q: What pieces are being sold?

A: Because Still did not title many of his paintings, the proposed works for sale are known only by their inventory numbers. For the record they are: PH-351 (1940), 41 by 37 1/2 inches; PH-584 (1947), 69 1/2 by 59 inches; PH-89 (1949), 93 by 79 inches; and PH-1033 (1976), 93 1/2 by 83 inches.

Q: Will the loss of these paintings affect the quality of the Still Museum's offerings?

A: Still Museum director Dean Sobel said the works are similar to many other works in the museum's pending collection and will have no substantive effect on its future displays.

Q: When would the sale take place?

A: That depends on the court's schedule in Maryland, but the museum is not expecting to hear anything for two to six months.

Q: Will the sale be controversial?

A: That depends on whom you ask. According to Sobel, the answer is no. "I find it responsible and strategic and consistent with how Mrs. Still used this body of work," he said. But museum ethicist Janet Marstine suspects that concerns over a potential controversy around the sale led to the museum's decision to be proactive about discussing its plans with the press. "They are obviously trying to create some kind of transparency, so they can seem to be relatively above board about this," she said.

Q: What if no museum comes forward to purchase the four works?

A: No decision has been made as to what would be done in that scenario, but Sobel did not rule out the possibility that they could be sold on the open market.

Q: Should the public be concerned that there will be future sales of the art, especially if the museum runs into financial difficulties down the road?

A: On that issue, the public has Sobel's word. "It's absolutely clear in the agreement (with both Still estates) that once it comes to the city — remember that it's not there yet — that we can't do that," Sobel said. "And to the extent you believe what I say or what the board says, we wouldn't do it."

Q: The museum has secured more than $26 million toward its building during a tough economic time. Why is the sale necessary, given the success the museum has already had with fundraising?

A: Sobel believes the museum needs a major operations endowment to ensure its long-term viability. But finding money for endowments is typically more challenging than that for capital projects, and there is no guarantee that it could raise $25 million from donors. The sale offers a kind of shortcut, albeit a potentially controversial one.

Q: Why not sell a fifth painting and cover the remaining $2.7 million that the museum needs to cover its building's cost?

A: When the the city of Denver agreed to accept the Still estate in 2004, Sobel said, it pledged that it would raise the necessary funds to construct a building to house it.

Missy Franklin, Jenny Simpson, Adeline Gray and three other Colorado women could be big players at the 2016 Rio OlympicsWhen people ask Missy Franklin for her thoughts about the Summer Olympics that will begin a year from Wednesday in Rio de Janeiro, she hangs a warning label on her answer.